Hi any one out there know name, and access to shaft in via gellia opposite ball eye quarry large grate over shaft, locked trapdoor, sycamore tree growing up through same.25 M below top of slope/ field.
SK 288 589 ish
Many thanks, Owd Git.

I'm not 100% sure, but if it's opposite Ball Eye and secured it may be dropping into Owlet Hole, and it's likely that the Arkwright society put the lock on.

---

I still don't get what the Arkright siciety has to do with mines...

---

They own Slinter wood at the Cromford end, which has a number of footpaths running through it hence why they've secured most of the obvious mineworkings.

---

Well in that case if the Arkwright Society is claiming responsibility for mines in their remit, then I hope that they have done their legal homework!

The Barmote Court is still in existance and I understand from the laws of the court, that the owner of any mine claimed under the Court is responsible for maintenance of the mine, including shafts, adits and mine surface (all that area measured by the Barmaster when the vein is "nicked). This means that anyone injuring themselves on the "body" of the mine has cause to claim against the owner of the mine for injury sustained. There are examples of claims in some of the old Barmaster's Record Books and 19th century newspaper articles regarding law suits.

Food for thought!!! :sneaky:

So have the AS bunch barred access to these workings then?

---

Sougher - I don't think they've claimed ownership to any of the workings to the best of my knowledge but they still have landowner's duties under the various mines acts as the workings are all abandoned. Hence, they've barred up the entrance to upper Owlet Hole and I'm told they're recently put a new lock on the door to the lower workings at Owlet Hole Gate. It was open last year when I went in and thinking about it, there's a shaft at the far end that's grilled at surface which might be the shaft referred to. Cowhole pipe is still open for a determined idiot to throw themselves into, but that takes a bit more finding.....

ICLOK - I'm not sure what the state of play is with the AS and the gated workings, I'll make enquiries.

---

Appreciated .. regs ICLOK

---

There was an article published about the mines in the Slingtor area (Roger Flindall, 1977. Mines in the Slingtor Wood area, Cromford. P.D.M.H.S. Bull. Vol. 6 No. 6 pp263-279.)
Recently I have been compiling a definitive history of these mines and also writing up an account of the explorations carried out by the Eastwood Mining and Caving Group during 1993.
I have not heard of anyone managing to obtain permission from the Arkwright Society to explore these mines since they purchased the site.
I would be interested to know if anyone has explored any workings that were not covered by the 1977 article.

I've been into the Cowhole pipe workings, not very extensive but interesting - I can't remember off the top of my head how much detail F&H gave in the article.

Just out of interest, where were you thinking of publishing your work on the Slingtor mines, online, Mining History, or DIY publication?

---

I don't know about the Barmote Court, but I do know about MASHAM and the H&S At Work Act.

I would tend to feel that Barmote and Stannary Courts alike, are about like Magna Carta - long since overtaken and superseded by more modern legislation and still in existence because no-one has bothered to repeal it in so many words, but of no practical value in todays' courts.

Those MPs who tried to claim that a long-disused law meant they were effectively immune from prosecution didn't have much success

landowners have a duty of care in respect of abandoned and derelict mine workings on their land, both to their employees and to third parties such as walkers on footpaths and rights of way.

this doesn't mean they have any of the duties incumbent on the Mine Owner.

There was a lot of discussion of this in the formative stages at Combe Down. The Council ( BaNES ) didn't want to take on the role of Mine Owner and various alternatives were explored to avoid this. If the site had been bought out and allowed to collapse as and when, as was seriously examined and as is sometimes done in former colliery areas, BaNES would not have had the Mine Owner role.

HMIM were not happy with this, but it's the law. Minor workings stabilised by surface drilling and grouting, such as the work being done around St Albans and Welwyn in recent years, largely avoids this and these projects are run as civils sites with no MASHAM content.

I don't know about the 1980s Cornish shaft-capping programme. MASHAM was not then in its current form, plus the ownership of at least some of the shafts in question was known. I would guess that it was done as an M&Q Act project, partly because of ownership issues and partly because some degree of man entry must have been involved, and this was the defining criteria at Combe Down.

---

In my experience of restoration and treatment projects, it is the man entry requirement that forces the issue.
You can usually get away with an inspection visit or two without 're-opening' the mine but as soon as you need to do real work the Inspector wants it made official.
That said, it is rare to get a site visit from an inspector during a project. However, just let there be an accident and they descend with full force.